Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


"Lost Cause" - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Jun 30th, 2011 11:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
81st Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 330
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Seems like there are those that find it hard to believe the South is as much home to Blacks as to the whites.

Last edited on Thu Jun 30th, 2011 11:43 am by Old Blu



 Posted: Sat Jul 2nd, 2011 12:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
82nd Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ex-Slaves Mr.and Mrs. Alex Smith of South Bend Indiana, in the slave narratives said, "The day the mistress and master came and told the slaves they were free to go any place they desired, Mrs. Smith's mother told her later that she was glad to be free but she had no place to go or any money to go with. Many of the slaves would not leave and she never witnessed such crying as went on. Later Mrs. Smith was paid for working." Also the Rev. H.H. Edmunds of Elkhart Indiana said," The negroes were very happy when they learned they were free as a result of the war. A few took advantage of their freedom immediately,but many,not knowing what else to do,remained with their former masters. Some remained on the plantations five years after they were free. Gradually they learned to care for themselves, often through instructions received from their former masters,and then they were glad to start out in the world for themselves. Of course,there were exceptions,for the slaves who had been abused by cruel masters were only too glad to leave their former homes." I found many such stories as these in the narratives about the end of the war. Also I found many with a positive view of plantation life or slavery. Though I do not express that I support slavery in any way,now or then. I know that you can not escape that issue when speaking of the war. My point being that after the war the union seemed to abandon the cause of the black people. The freedmans bureau was nothing more than a political gimmick to help keep the south subdued. I think that is a proof the freeing of the slaves was nothing more than a war measure by the union,seeing how quickly they abandoned them at wars end. Their former masters being the ones to help them. Their homes were together. I also know that from the slave narratives I am about to post does in no way express the views of all former slaves. But I will dare to say the majority of the ones I have read or more positive toward the white southern people than negative. As to date, as this subject has been brought up I have read about sixty two. I hope to read all they are very interesting. Walter Calloway of Birmingham Alabama said, "was not long after that they tell us we free. But Lordy, Captain, we ain't never been what I calls free. Cause, ole master did not own us no more. All the folks soon scattered all over. But, if they all like me, they still have to work just as hard. An some times have less than we used to have when we stayed on master Johns plantation." Tempe Herndon Durham, of Durham North Carolina said,"Freedom is all right, but the blacks(blacks my wording)was better off before surrender...Marse George and Miss Betsy they was the same as a mammy an pappy to us."Clayton Holbert of Ottawa Kansas said"Most of the slave owners were good to thier slaves although some of them were brutish of course."Fountian Hughes of Charlottesville Virginia said,"Colored people thats free ought to be awful thankful. An some of them is sorry they are free now. Some of them would rather be slaves."Aunt Adeline from Fayetteville Arkansas said,"After the war many soldiers(yankees)came to my mistress, Mrs. Blakely, trying to make her free me. I told them I was free but I did not want to go anywhere, that I wanted to stay in the only home that I ever known.....Sometimes I was threatened for not leaving but stayed on." And Charity Anderson of Mobile Alabama said,"when my house burned up, the white folk's helped me so that in no time you could'nt tell I had ever lost a thing but honey the good ole days is done gone forever." I would like to say, the reason for these quotes is I was was not aware of such content in the slave narratives. Maybe the members of the board was. I was not. Only the stuff where southerners abused thier slaves. Seems if revisionist would rather keep this part of history buried. I would encourge every member of the board to take a look at the slave narratives. Like I said there is those stories of slaves being whipped and mistreated, but I think has a whole you will find such as I have given here. And you will also learn of a very extraordinary people. (resourse: Slave-Narratives)

Pender

 



 Posted: Sat Jul 2nd, 2011 02:15 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
83rd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pender, though I haven't the time to look up those stories you reference in the slave narratives, I would be very careful using them as a source. The biggest problem is that you have to know who the interviewer was and where the interview was done. You get two very different stories about how former slaves felt about the war depending on the skin color of the interviewer and whether the interviewee felt that there might be repercussions for his or her comments. Though I can't remember the name off the top of my head, there was one instance in the Slave Narratives where a black man gave the "Gone with the Wind" story of happy paternalism to a white interviewer and then a few weeks later told a black interviewer how he sabotaged his master's farm implements and often engaged in acts of carefully controlled disobedience behind his master's back. I'm not saying the stories you give aren't in the Slave Narratives, just be very careful when citing them as sources.

Mark



 Posted: Sat Jul 2nd, 2011 12:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
84th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark, about all of the bits I posted came from the Federal writers project 1936-1938, Slave Narratives. I will give the name of the source of my post and the interviewers name, and state. Charity Anderson, Interviewer: Ila B. Prine and Ira S. Jordan. WPA Slave narrative project, Alabama Narratives, Vol. 1. Walter Calloway, Interviewer: W.F. Jordan. WPA Slave narrative project, Alabama Narratives Vol.1. Tempie H. Durham, Interviewer: Travis Jordan. WPA Slave Narrative project, North Carolina Narratives, Vol.2 part 1. Clayton Holbert, Interviewer: Leta Gray. WPA Slave N arrative project, Kansas Narratives Vol. 6. Rev. H.H. Edmunds, Interviewer: Albert Strope, Federal writers project, Indiana Narratives. Mr. and Mrs. Alex Smith, Interviewer: Henrietta Karwowski, Federal writers project, Indiana Narratives. Maybe this will help some Mark. But I must tell you I do not know the color of the interviewers. But it does seem that they are all federal writers. Maybe WE can not trust them. Just a joke. Mark awhile back I added manna to your profile by mistake. I do not know if that is good or bad. If bad please forgive me, If it is good than that is just fine.    Pender



 Posted: Sun Jul 3rd, 2011 06:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
85th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have no idea what mana is... but thanks I guess!

Mark



 Posted: Mon Jul 4th, 2011 02:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
86th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 902
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Used to have things telling what mana is. What I recall, mana is something you can add to someone whose posts you find interesting or helpful. You click their name and you get a menu come up. View Profile, Send a Private Message, Send E-mail, Visit Homepage, Add Mana. Depending on the person the e-mail and/or hompage options may not be available. Like javal has homepage available, which opens CWI in a new page, but the e-mail option isn't available. You and I don't have either e-mail or homepage available. But we can always add mana to someone.



 Posted: Mon Jul 4th, 2011 03:01 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
87th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Best advice about mana - ignore it. It's based on some convuluted mathematical formula that never worked right from the beginning. If you enjoy a particular topic. look at the upper right of the first post in every topic and you'll see "Rate Topic". That works well.



 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 12:10 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
88th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: Pender,

You seem to have difficulty with quoting sources.

Yours is: "In the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up.And which would have become real and respected if the rebellion HAD BEEN successful."

The actual qoutation is a single sentence ( no period between 'up' and 'and' ). The sentence's subject is the 'opposition to the government' and anything occuring later in the sentence refers to the subject(the 'opposition').

It could also mean that Grant believed in the two-party system and that the 'opposition' (hereto suppressed) that would become 'real and respected', but I doubt that is his meaning.

There is a fundamental difference between a 'government' and a 'nation'. Governments (and their authority) come and go; nations continue. Grant says nothing of a confederate 'nation'. That word is inserted in your imaginery quotation.


In general, in response to your final few sentences, the North believed the 2 sections are stronger united than apart...


HankC

In the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up and which would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful. Hank, I had hoped to get Mark and TD's thoughts on what they thought Grant meant by this. But I guess Mark is moving, and I seem to be as A.P. Hill at the Seven Day's Battle waiting on Stonewall Jackson, I have waited for TD's thoughts in vain. I must ask you what goverment was set up in the south? There was no goverment set up in the south during the war, but the Confederate Goverment. Period or not. There is no other goverment in the south. You say Grant means the opposition to the goverment would become real and respected. But if you will note, he writes" in the south no opposition was allowed to the goverment which had been set up. You seem to have imagined the opposition. I see no other alternative, than to admit Grant was indeed writing of the Confederacy.



 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 04:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
89th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Here is the pertinent section of the memoirs.

How does the the surrounding paragraphs support your interpretation of the emboldened sentence?

"There has always been a great conflict of opinion as to the number of troops engaged in every battle, or all important battles, fought between the sections, the South magnifying the number of Union troops engaged and belittling their own. Northern writers have fallen, in many instances, into the same error. I have often heard gentlemen, who were thoroughly loyal to the Union, speak of what a splendid fight the South had made and successfully continued for four years before yielding, with their twelve million of people against our twenty, and of the twelve four being colored slaves, non-combatants. I will add to their argument. We had many regiments of brave and loyal men who volunteered under great difficulty from the twelve million belonging to the South.

But the South had rebelled against the National government. It was not bound by any constitutional restrictions. The whole South was a military camp. The occupation of the colored people was to furnish supplies for the army. Conscription was resorted to early, and embraced every male from the age of eighteen to forty-five, excluding only those physically unfit to serve in the field, and the necessary number of civil officers of State and intended National government. The old and physically disabled furnished a good portion of these. The slaves, the non-combatants, one-third of the whole, were required to work in the field without regard to sex, and almost without regard to age. Children from the age of eight years could and did handle the hoe; they were not much older when they began to hold the plough. The four million of colored non-combatants were equal to more than three times their number in the North, age for age and sex for sex, in supplying food from the soil to support armies. Women did not work in the fields in the North, and children attended school.

The arts of peace were carried on in the North. Towns and cities grew during the war. Inventions were made in all kinds of machinery to increase the products of a day's labor in the shop, and in the field. In the South no opposition was allowed to the government which had been set up and which would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful. No rear had to be protected. All the troops in service could be brought to the front to contest every inch of ground threatened with invasion. The press of the South, like the people who remained at home, were loyal to the Southern cause.

In the North, the country, the towns and the cities presented about the same appearance they do in time of peace. The furnace was in blast, the shops were filled with workmen, the fields were cultivated, not only to supply the population of the North and the troops invading the South, but to ship abroad to pay a part of the expense of the war. In the North the press was free up to the point of open treason. The citizen could entertain his views and express them. Troops were necessary in the Northern States to prevent prisoners from the Southern army being released by outside force, armed and set at large to destroy by fire our Northern cities. Plans were formed by Northern and Southern citizens to burn our cities, to poison the water supplying them, to spread infection by importing clothing from infected regions, to blow up our river and lake steamers—regardless of the destruction of innocent lives. The copperhead disreputable portion of the press magnified rebel successes, and belittled those of the Union army. It was, with a large following, an auxiliary to the Confederate army. The North would have been much stronger with a hundred thousand of these men in the Confederate ranks and the rest of their kind thoroughly subdued, as the Union sentiment was in the South, than we were as the battle was fought.

As I have said, the whole South was a military camp. The colored people, four million in number, were submissive, and worked in the field and took care of the families while the able-bodied white men were at the front fighting for a cause destined to defeat. The cause was popular, and was enthusiastically supported by the young men. The conscription took all of them. Before the war was over, further conscriptions took those between fourteen and eighteen years of age as junior reserves, and those between forty-five and sixty as senior reserves. It would have been an offence, directly after the war, and perhaps it would be now, to ask any able-bodied man in the South, who was between the ages of fourteen and sixty at any time during the war, whether he had been in the Confederate army. He would assert that he had, or account for his absence from the ranks. Under such circumstances it is hard to conceive how the North showed such a superiority of force in every battle fought. I know they did not."

 

HankC



 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 11:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
90th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How does the surrounding paragraphs support your interpretation of the emboldened sentence?

Hank, How does it not? Grant is telling of the past state of the north and south during the war. I see nothing that would presuade me to believe that grant does not mean anything other than the Confederacy. If we look at the context of the emboldened sentence."In the south no opposition was allowed to the government which had been set up and which would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful."1. In the south. From this we know it is not the union government, because the union government is in the north. 2. Opposition or union sentiment. We know there where pro union sentiment in the south as well as pro confederate sentiment in the north. But Grant is addressing neither one. Look at the context" no opposition was allowed to the government which had been set up" So we have no opposition in this statement. 3." And which would have become real and respected" Note that in this statement it is the government that would have become real and respected" In the beginning of this statement Grant say's in the south. So the context has to be the government in the south. What government was there in the south except the southern Confederacy?4." If the rebellion had been successful" This is based on the premise if the rebellion had been successful. It could benefit no one else, but the Confederacy. How could it benefit any union sentiment or the United State's government for the rebellion to be successful? That is why I see no other option, but to say Grant is indeed saying the Confederate government would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful. I do not understand why that is so hard to except. As I showed before, though the men of the union, and the men of the confederate armies fought a war with each other. I believe history show's alot respected each other. Consider my earlier post on Grant's memoir on Appomattox. Why would Grant not think the Confederacy would have become real and respected? Was he not a fighting to bring these same men back into the union? Was it not also some of the descendants in the south, that thier ancestors help frame the original United States constitution? The bill of right's and the Declaration of Independence? 5.Also in the surrounding paragraphs Grant is dealing with a time of war. If the rebellion would have been succesful, his context would have been placed in a time of peace. I tried looking up commentary on this section of Grant's memoir, but all I found was A Confederate Catechism by Lyon Gardiner Tyler. On question 15 in his book, Had the south gained it's Independence, would it have proved a failure? He use's Grant's memoir as a source that the Confederacy would have become real and respected. Which I found intersting, that at least he saw it the same way as me. Hank, If I am wrong on this subject of Grant's memoir, I will be the first one to admit it. I would also admit I was wrong in using it in the context of an earlier post. The memoir would not change any of my views on the lost cause in any shape or form. Just that Grant did not mean what he said. Maybe another member will jump in and give thier opinion on this memoir as we have gave ours. In closing I would like to call attention to the latter part of the closing paragraph where Grant stated," While the able-bodied white men were at the front fighting for a cause destined to defeat." Sound's alot like Early and Gordon on the lost cause. But that is another subject.

Pender

,



 Posted: Sat Jul 16th, 2011 01:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
91st Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hank, thanks for posting the context. All my books are still packed up from the move at the moment. Pender, after reading the passage in context here are my thoughts: Ironically, Grant is deconstructing the claims of lost cause writers. He is explaining that some Southern (and northern) writers are exaggerating the disparity between the sides. Grant explains that Confederates had the advantage of being able to mobilize a greater percentage of manpower than the Federals because of the institution of slavery and that since the vast majority of the battles were fought on Southern soil, they did not have to worry about guarding supply lines. As to the quote in question, Grant is making the point (incorrectly I think) that the South's one party system prevented dissension on the home-front. Could the South have been successful on its own? Of course, why not? But that is the realm of the hypothetical.

Mark



 Posted: Sat Jul 16th, 2011 11:13 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
92nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

you say - "I tried looking up commentary on this section of Grant's memoir, but all I found was A Confederate Catechism by Lyon Gardiner Tyler. On question 15 in his book, Had the south gained it's Independence, would it have proved a failure? He use's Grant's memoir as a source that the Confederacy would have become real and respected. Which I found intersting, that at least he saw it the same way as me."

What's truly interesting is that you used the same, exact, and incorrect, quote as Tyler ("a real and respected nation.") rather than the correct, and complete, quotation. This bad quote appears on many Lost Cause web sites. Naturally, it casts doubt on what Tyler says and illustrates the point that bad facts, repeated often enough, eventually get a life of their own.

you say - "If I am wrong on this subject of Grant's memoir, I will be the first one to admit it. I would also admit I was wrong in using it in the context of an earlier post. The memoir would not change any of my views on the lost cause in any shape or form. "

One hopes that fact-based opinions change as the underlying facts are found to be faulty and new facts emerge.


HankC



 Posted: Sun Jul 17th, 2011 05:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
93rd Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: you say - "I tried looking up commentary on this section of Grant's memoir, but all I found was A Confederate Catechism by Lyon Gardiner Tyler. On question 15 in his book, Had the south gained it's Independence, would it have proved a failure? He use's Grant's memoir as a source that the Confederacy would have become real and respected. Which I found intersting, that at least he saw it the same way as me."

What's truly interesting is that you used the same, exact, and incorrect, quote as Tyler ("a real and respected nation.") rather than the correct, and complete, quotation. This bad quote appears on many Lost Cause web sites. Naturally, it casts doubt on what Tyler says and illustrates the point that bad facts, repeated often enough, eventually get a life of their own.

you say - "If I am wrong on this subject of Grant's memoir, I will be the first one to admit it. I would also admit I was wrong in using it in the context of an earlier post. The memoir would not change any of my views on the lost cause in any shape or form. "

One hopes that fact-based opinions change as the underlying facts are found to be faulty and new facts emerge.


HankC


Hank, What ever, I really don't know what you are talking about.

Could you please give me the list of lost cause web sites, that have this qoute. All I could find is Tyler's.

Seem's you will not except fact's, no matter the evidence.

As I said before, I was not using this memoir to say Grant was supporting any lost cause dogma. The point being if the rebbelion WERE SUCCESFUL, the southern government would have become real and respected.


Pender
 

Last edited on Sun Jul 17th, 2011 08:59 am by pender



 Posted: Sun Jul 17th, 2011 05:40 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
94th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: you say - "I tried looking up commentary on this section of Grant's memoir, but all I found was A Confederate Catechism by Lyon Gardiner Tyler. On question 15 in his book, Had the south gained it's Independence, would it have proved a failure? He use's Grant's memoir as a source that the Confederacy would have become real and respected. Which I found intersting, that at least he saw it the same way as me." What's truly interesting is that you used the same, exact, and incorrect, quote as Tyler ("a real and respected nation.") rather than the correct, and complete, quotation. This bad quote appears on many Lost Cause web sites. Naturally, it casts doubt on what Tyler says and illustrates the point that bad facts, repeated often enough, eventually get a life of their own. you say - "If I am wrong on this subject of Grant's memoir, I will be the first one to admit it. I would also admit I was wrong in using it in the context of an earlier post. The memoir would not change any of my views on the lost cause in any shape or form. " One hopes that fact-based opinions change as the underlying facts are found to be faulty and new facts emerge. HankC
Hank, Are there any commentary other than I gave? What Should it say? Real and respected govenment? That is what Grant say's would have become real and respected. I showed it could not be the opposition as you wrote in an earlier post. If Grant is not talking about the Confederacy. Then who? 

Mark,  I would like to thank you for the response, I agree with your thoughts on the subject matter. Though I would disagree with Grant on the disparity of numbers.

Last edited on Sun Jul 17th, 2011 08:44 am by pender



 Posted: Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 09:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
95th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote in post 76 of this thread, "No one is forced to leave. No gulags are created, there are no trails of tears or forced migrations."

I would have to disagree entirely with that statement. As I also believe the southern cotton mill workers of Roswell Georgia would, after Sherman ordered the arrest and deportation of them.(Source: North across the river, author: Ruth Beaumont Cook) I would also think that confederate general Stand Watie would disagree. As he was a member of the southern Cherokee delegation during the negotiation of the Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866. As we can see from this link these five indian tribes would also disagree. Let us see what the penalty was for supporting the confederacy. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RE001.html                       

I do not think that Phil Sheridan would agree when he went out west to deal with the indians during Reconstruction declaring that the only good indian is a dead indian. No folks I do not believe Reconstruction was as soft on white southerners and indians as Hank would have us believe. This is one fact Hank you are wrong on.

Pender



 Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 01:27 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
96th Post
BobInFla
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 30th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

the South NEVER had a snowball's chance in hell of conquering the Federals militarily - on the ground or on the seas. Had they not been so foolish in their hysterical megalomonia (e.g. "1 Confederate soldier is worth 10 Yankees") as to attack Ft Sumter and arouse the ire of the people of the North, they might have had  a better chance of achieving independence diplomatically and peacefully.  The attack on Ft Sumter was as unwise as it was unnecessary, it gained them nothing - strategically, materially or diplomatically. The surrender of Ft Sumter  only gave them an over-inflated sense of military might and false confidence.

Last edited on Mon Oct 31st, 2011 01:32 am by BobInFla



 Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 12:48 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
97th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Still, the Confederacy almost won foreign intervention mid-way through 1862, came very close to causing the peace party to be elected in 1864 and failed to capitalize on the idea of guerrilla war in 1865. I think the Confederacy had some very good chances to win and never managed to do it.

Mark



 Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 03:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
98th Post
BobInFla
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 30th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

This whole idea of the all-conquering, invincible "British Lion" was nothing but a Forlorn Hope by the Southern anglophiles. The British Army would have had to come across the Atlantic and maintain a tenuous supply line across that vast ocean. The tough and experienced Union Army and Navy would have kicked the English Army's ass. Look at the dismal performance by the combined English and French forces in the earlier Crimean War, which was located much closer to those countries than far-off America. Look at France's pathetic performance in the Maximilian affair in Mexico. And talk about "guerilla warfare" - two can play that game. The idea of a foreign (i.e. British) Invasion would have really enraged and unified the people of the North. The Northern peace movement had a better chance WITHOUT foreign invasion of America. With foreign intervention, any Northern peace advcocates would have been seen as nothing short of traitors by the population. The Souther anglophiles were under the delusion (of which they had many :D ) that the North was afraid of "The British Lion". Bullcrap! Sec of State Seward made it quite clear to the English throughout the war that the US would not hesitate to go to war with Britain if they did not respect certain issues.

Last edited on Mon Oct 31st, 2011 03:38 pm by BobInFla



 Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 08:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
99th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

BobInFla-

  First of all, we're dealing here with what ifs instead of facts. Having said that, in my view you are far too dismissive of British military power in the early 1860s.

  If there had been a war between the federal government and Great Britain in 1861 or 1862, the outcome of the Civil War I believe would have been very different. The British could have shipped as many troops to Canada unhindered as they wished to. They then could have launched large scale operations across any point of the US/Canadian border that they chose to.

  In 1861 and 1862, the US Army had plenty on its plate dealing with the Confederates. It wasn't anywhere near as effective then as it would be in 1865, either in the quality of its leadership or its soldiers. But it wasn't the British Army that would most threaten northern interests. The help most needed by the Confederates was the aid of the British Royal Navy, in order to break the blockade.

  In 1861 and 1862, Britannia still ruled the waves. The Royal Navy was superior in both quantity and quality. The US Navy was just embarking on a large scale building program that would by 1865 increase its size from less than 100 ships to almost 700. The British had an experienced professional navy and the latest equipment.

  As an example of this, the British Navy had built ocean going ironclad ships, namely the HMS WARRIOR and her sister.

HMS Warrior (1860)

  The US Navy had no blue water ships that could match her. It built no ocean going monitors until right at the end of the war. For the British, breaking the blockade at whatever point they chose would have easily been within their capabilities. This would have allowed the Confederates to obtain large numbers of weapons and other manufactured goods that were vitally needed to strengthen their military.

  My view is that the last thing the federals needed was a war with Great Britain. Mr. Lincoln wanted no part of it. When some hotheads suggested such a course of action, Mr. Lincoln wisely said: "One war at a time."

  The mistake that the southerners made was in believing that the British economy couldn't survive without southern cotton. They counted on economic necessity to force the British to come to their aid. But the British, although injured by the loss of most of the southern cotton, managed to compensate somewhat by securing some cotton from other places, such as India. The pain caused by losing southern cotton wasn't great enough to get the British to spend blood and treasure to obtain it.

Last edited on Mon Oct 31st, 2011 09:05 pm by Texas Defender



 Posted: Tue Nov 1st, 2011 05:00 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
100th Post
BobInFla
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 30th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender wrote: BobInFla-

  First of all, we're dealing here with what ifs instead of facts. Having said that, in my view you are far too dismissive of British military power in the early 1860s.

True, this is all very hypothetical. But I am convinced that any land invasion of the North by the British would have failed miserably. It would have united and aroused the people of the North as nothing else could have. If the British couldn't beat us in 1776 or 1812, they certainly were not going to beat us in the 1860's. Again, look at their Crimean War debacle. The Civil War awakened the industrial might of the North which even the British could never have matched. Yes, the North had "it's plate full" trying to subjugate the South, in part due to  initial inept Union military leadership.  It did NOT have "it's plate full" trying to prevent the South from conquering the North. The Confederate failures in Missouri, Kentucky, Pennsylvania are proof of that.  

I agree that the Royal Navy presented a far greater threat than any land invasion.

from "The Confederate States of America 1861-1865" by E. Merton Coulter: 

"The Southern belief that their cotton monopoly would be their greatest diplomatic weapon failed because England had a large surplus of raw cotton on hand, suffcient to last her almost through 1862, as well as a large supply of finished cloth which she marketed at an immense profit on the rising market. The cotton embargo also led the British to try to fulfill fond hopes, long entertained, of breaking the Southern cotton monopoly by encouraging growth in India and Egypt. Before the end of the war, they had succeeded in securing large supplies from these regions."

 



 Current time is 10:31 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4657 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 29 queries executed.